Here’s pt 3. I haven’t recorded it yet but I will.
Part 3 One minute video. Connection between my work and research – is there any?
So I’m interested in everything that sits alongside a work – I am interested in the work itself but also am equally interested in everything else that’s happening simultaneously – all the unannounced stuff – the situation, the sounds, interruptions, the site, all the activity that is going on inspite of the art
The idea I’m exploring is that everything that goes on around or adjacent to a work is as unstable and unreliable as the art work itself
So there’s not a stable world of familiar and habitual things from which the artwork is constructed – but the familiar is instead just as volatile and alive as the work of art (similarly the things that go into a work of art are just as unstable – however this becomes murky as artists forget and endeavour to attach meaning to
The idea is that the things that appear – the thoughts, the signs, sensations, objects – all that gathers as experience is entirely unique and unrepeatable (unreliable and non transferable – and always in motion via a process of regeneration)
So the processes that are active in creating a world of shared experience retain their particular, singular properties.
What does this mean – it means that the fragments that make up the familiar are in themselves separate compositions (incomparable, non transferable) – each an expression of the event forces propelling their appearance.
And that each fragment, every moment of familiarity, each fleeting expression – is a volatile and unconstrained gathering of potential that is as radical and as complex as any gesture of creativity
So not only am I looking at the artwork as an example of such forces but alongside this all the other signs that allow for experience – both the artwork and the familiar register unlimited activity of composition and variation.
My feeling is that what is obscured by an exclusive focus on an artwork is the idea of the familiar world being in constant motion, constantly being refreshed or renewed – and that all that appears familiar is always another variation – even though it seems the same – in being remade it exists as a singular composition with unique terms, processes and potential. And this process never stops.
So research into something that is explored as static appears to obscure the nature of what is under-way in the wider situation, which is made up of the artwork and all the other activity that build the context, the viewer, the surrounds, the natural environment, thinking, sensations, ….
Research activity that participated with these activities would be inconstant renewal – and the terms, the conditions and characteristics of the research would always be in motion, in connection with the singular fragments that the research activity co produced.
So how can this contribute to research? Perhaps its better to forget the term research and ‘remember process’, which reclaims the unjustifiable and useless as important to the muddled activity of art.
Perhaps this is a way to sidestep all that burdens (and constrains) research – the western norms of knowledge, the role of the archive, stakeholders, the market, institutions, peer reviewing experts – coherence, order and judgement – and to instead reattend to art as a playground of incoherent, unjustifiable, singular muddling.